Dissident Voice

May
31, 2003

Elizabeth
Nickson’s article in the Canadian
National Post of 23 May 2003 was a stinging attack on environmental groups.
A dictionary definition of an environmentalist is, “someone who works to
protect the environment from destruction or pollution.” Given that, it is hard
to comprehend why anyone would be opposed to such a seemingly altruistic
groups.

But
Ms. Nickson refers to these people as “neo-Stalinists.” The article is replete
with name-calling spuriously posing as argument, unenlightenment, and a hint of
paternalism in claiming environmentalists duped First Nations. First Nations
have a history of living in harmony with nature and it would be more honest to
point out that the environmentalists are the Johnny-come-latelies.

Ms.
Nickson also plays loose with the facts. She relegates the province of British
Columbia (BC) to the back of the economic pack among provinces despite
indications otherwise. Ms. Nickson attributes this low standing to
environmentalists. When questioned about the economic evidence she reveals in
an email that BC’s ranking “#10 out of 10 was told to me, supported by several
press reports last week, by a Minister of Tourism and Development, and [BC
Premier] Campbell's sr. aide,” who turned out to be rather a regional manager.

According
to Statistics Canada unemployment rates for April 2003, BC ranks fifth best.
Canada Department of Finance fiscal tables for October 2002 shows that BC now
has the highest deficit among provinces. The Bank of Montreal special report of
20 February 2002 noted how the New Democratic Party forecasted a $1.1 billion
surplus for 2001-02 following its $1.5 billion surplus in 2000-01. The NDP was
wiped out in the provincial election though. In came the neoliberals of Gordon
Campbell. Quickly they made good on their promise to cut income taxes and they
did likewise for corporate income tax and corporate capital tax. Consequently
BC was thrown into a deficit position such that the 2003-04 budget deficit is
predicted to reach $4.4 billion.

The
Liberals hypocritically hiked health care premiums, the tobacco tax, and the
provincial sales tax. So rather than reining in the profligate spending of the
NDP years as claimed by Ms. Nickson, the truth is that the BC Liberals are
maneuvering to get a grip on the provincial finances by reneging on campaign
promises. What is the upshot of the change in government? Well BC has an upward
spiraling deficit, a higher level of unemployment (6.8 percent under the NDP to
8.1 percent now with the Liberals), lower income taxes, higher consumption
taxes, soaring tuition fees, and disgruntlement in BC.

According
to Ms. Nickson the environmental groups have been vacuuming in all the money.
Well the BC Green Party sure is scratching its head about that one. If we
compare environmental groups with corporate tyrannies then a truer picture of
money-electroluxes appears.

Writes
Ms. Nickson: “The actions of environmental groups in British Columbia in the
'90s can only be called undemocratic.” Why? Because they are funded by “foreign
nationals.” That reasoning would wipe out most of the aid going to alleviate
starvation in sub-Saharan Africa. BC’s erstwhile Lt. Governor David Lam was
also a foreign national and BC has benefited much from his philanthropy. If
soliciting funding is wrong then Canada’s political system is also
undemocratic, and I for one am not going to argue that it is democratic. The
contradictions in Ms. Nickson’s assertions become rather stark when she rails
against boycotts. Boycotts are a manifestation of the democratic right to
dissent. It would be fairer if Ms. Nickson chose which side of the fence she
wants to play on.

Ms.
Nickson asserts: “The international e-groups in the '90s were a vocal,
organized and largely non-resident minority that forced their preferences upon
the majority. If it were not the majority, then please explain the overwhelming
vote for the Liberals two years ago?” Ms. Nickson is again playing both sides
of the fence. It is true that some environmental groups had their origins
elsewhere but Greenpeace, the Suzuki Foundation, and the Western Canada
Wilderness Society are homegrown actors. If she applies that same criterion to
all money in politics her argument would carry more weight. Corporations donate
overwhelmingly to the BC Liberals. In support of her contention, Ms. Nickson
appeals to the authority of neoliberal ideologue WT Stanbury, who advocates
easing foreign ownership restrictions. The crucial difference is that the
environmental groups are fighting to conserve the heritage of British
Columbians while the corporations are seeking to take it over. As for the NDP
slap-in-the-face defeat, it is easily explained as a vote against the perceived
corruption and incompetence of the incumbents rather than a vote for any
neoliberal platform. BC politics is highly polarized and the Liberals were the
only other name party in the election and with a chest full of corporate booty
to keep their name before the public.

Ms.
Nickson follows up: “British Columbia's salmon farms have already been the
target of a relentless propaganda campaign fuelled by hearsay and unsupported
by scientific fact.” BC salmon farmers have contended all along that farmed
salmon wouldn’t escape and if they did they wouldn’t survive in the wild; and
they certainly wouldn’t enter rivers to spawn; and if they did they wouldn’t be
able to spawn successfully. Scientists have empirically verified all these
phenomena.

She
attacks the wages paid environmental group executives. I will not defend
excessive salaries for environmental heads but I will put it into perspective
by comparing the environmental chiefs’ salaries with corporate executives’
salaries and then that attack turns into a wet spaghetti noodle.

Ms.
Nickson concludes: “There are solutions to keeping the planet green and
healthy. They just aren't to be found with the international environmental
groups.”

Promulgating
solutions is one thing and implementing them is another. The BC NDP decade of
the 90s featured:

*
Increasing protected parkland to 12 percent

*
Planting 2.5 billion trees

*
Protecting grizzly bears and fish-bearing streams

*
Severely reducing forestry industry pollution and damage

*
Development of an eco-tourism strategy

A
look at the BCFacts.org website details how “[d]uring the 2001 election, BC's
government-to-be promised ‘a New Era of environmental management, based on
sound science, cleaner water and sustainable practices.’” Practice, however,
has been the contrary:

*
Relaxing standards for pulp mill pollution

*
Endorsing coal-fired energy plants, a major greenhouse polluter

*
Slashing environmental monitoring and enforcement staff

*
Ending moratorium on expansion of salmon farming in BC waters

A
look at the records and the facts paints a different picture than that
proffered by Ms. Nickson. The BC NDP had the ferry fiasco and patio problems of
the leader but stacked against the leadership and record of the BC Liberals the
better solution does not lie with neoliberalism unless you are a corporation.